28 November 2006

As we all know, the previous title for "Most Pyro Comments, Ever," was held by yr. obdt. svt., DJP. The meta on Resurrection not essential? ran to 264 comments, leaving me the Comment King since April. My position seemed secure. I had at long last justified my existence.

Not one to take defeat lightly, I'm already fomenting titles that might regain my crown.

So I ponder, and I recollect: "Hm, talking about the Gospel vs. gutless grace stirred up a lot of comments... a mild remark about Wright did it before... and it always works some folks up when we talk about Da Gifts.... What if I did some creative combining? Hmm...."

#8 is the one that got an out-loud laugh here. Although taking on the pomos gets rather mixed results. They've shown themselves least able to have a true two-way conversation, but they also cannot let go until they've had the last word, which will drive the commnet count upward.

Whatever you do, remember to add a comic book cover. That's guaranteed to double the comment count.

(Let me insert another "tongue firmly in cheek" disclaimer here, lest those who can't take a dose of humor still haven't gotten it.)

#6 and #10 are absolutely amazing! I want to see articles written with those titles! Let's make a deal. If you promise to write articles with those titles, I'll get my whole church involved in posting comments. You'll crush Phil.

Oh, and everyone knows that Christian songs started to veer downhill after 1921, so you are just chasing the popular crowd with that one.

Oh, and Rick Warren ate my hamster.

If you really want to ratchet up the comment count, you should do a Frank. I don't mean post one the most barn-stormingly good things you've ever written and lump Clinton, Dobson and Bono together in it, I mean comment-spam your own thread.

"Pastors with Reformed Beliefs Who Preach Like Arminians (But Don't Sweat it Because They Bought That Sermon Online Anyway) and The Congregations Who Hired Them to Tickle Their Ears In The First Place."

C.T. Lilies said:"Pastors with Reformed Beliefs Who Preach Like Arminians (But Don't Sweat it Because They Bought That Sermon Online Anyway) and The Congregations Who Hired Them to Tickle Their Ears In The First Place."I love it! But since I'm commenting on Lilies' post it doesn't count toward yours, Dan.

Sorry its off topic and everything, but out of personal interest: After you have dismissed perfectionism and the nolordship stuff, Could you guys post a treatment of your own understanding of the relationship between Justification anb Sanctification? It wont get as many comments as "Write is a Loney" but hey, I'm interested anyway.

Surely, Dan, all you gotta do is post hard and strong on your dispy-ism? What could possibly generate as much heat as a combi of hermeneutics, end-times, and sanctifying Israeli state politics? Why, you'd even have all the non-Americans throwing in occasional, 'I don't get it; it must be an American thing' comments every so often to stoke the fires ;-D And I'm sure you could get Marcy in there quite easily to generate Marc's appearance and witty comment (accompanied by spoof picture on Purgatorio thereby generating more traffic for your post).

Oh, and 1 had me cackling, & 4 had me laughing slightly at myself, but How a tongue about N.T.Wright convinced me of Lordship salvation still has me chuckling even now.

Oh, and I think it's really quite sad that people keep feeling the need to write 'tongue-in-cheek'... I mean, it just sucks the fun out of the laughter :)

#3 and #4, I think, are the only ones where people will take you seriously. But speaking from personal experience, say anything negative about Piper and its an automatic deletion from numerous 'blogrolls'.

If the debate over the interpreation of the gospel known as Lordship Salvation died: Why did Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur and Phil Johnson reopen/reenter the debate?

Lou, did you pay attention to what Phil said when he opened the discussion on this blog a few days ago? Here are his words:

Given the obvious lack of seriousness in the commenters here who have advocated those doctrines, I'm no more inclined to devote multiple posts to the subject at PyroManiacs than I would be to discuss the Seventh-Day Adventists' doctrine of "investigative judgment."

But, in an effort to keep the spam out of other comment-threads and appease the handful of people who are itching to debate the issue here, I'll open the comment-thread in this post to the discussion.

Remember Antonio and his constant off-topic attempts to steer a comments thread toward his no-lordship views? He and others have been hijacking these comments threads, and inappropriately so. Seems to me Phil was graciously giving the no-lordship camp MORE than enough opportunity to show that, since the release of The Gospel According to Jesus and all the dialogue that transpired, surely the no-lordshipers have had enough time to come up with some legitimate and substantive arguments in support of their views. Phil even allowed for 400 comments.

And what happened? Same old same old--selective quoting of Scriptures as well as writers and texts of the past (thus failing to be honest about the whole picture), reviews that ignored the actual texts under review, and a resolute insistence on forcefully re-interpreting Lordship views as advocating works salvation in spite of the voluminous explanations to the contrary.

The 400+ posts were proof positive that, after all these years, the tactics of the no-lordshipers have not changed.

And should such off-topic posts pop up again on this blog, TeamPyro can say, "You had your chance...and came up wanting."

I forgot to mention that Dan is a great guy, and whether you agree with him or not you have to like him.

Have to?

Suggestions Dan:

"I'm not frit to say Joyce Meyer is wonderful".(I have peace about that one and I dreamed about it too).

"How I was delivered of a spirit of smeradactyl at a Rheinhard Bonkke crusade and then helped catch people slain in the Spirit and was signed up for Benny Hinn's newsletter and we are having coffee after the next Toronto Blessing meeting at Frank Turk's house".

everyone knows that Christian songs started to veer downhill after 1921

Nonsense. Queen Victoria was the one who oversaw the removal of that particular avenue of musical delight. As well she should have.

"Psalms only and only in the original language"

"Just because we rented a movie and had pizza and I was wearing LOR t-shirt does not mean I am relevant".

DJP: I like all of your suggestions, but they just aren't gonna be in the 250+ category. You gotta think big.

Now, something like a free t-shirt contest or weighing in on the colour of a mystery liquid--those are the keys to the kingdom--so to speak. (You'd think do-it-yourself blogspotting would be big, with all the people out there dying for links from Pyro, but so far it ain't been so.)

But unless you're ready to tackle "why [insert high-profile do-gooder here] isn't going to heaven," or invite the Caners over for a debate, I'm thinking that the topic you're looking for is still the coming thing.

Frank: I still think you're wrong about lumping those three guys together. That said, here's an article from Cal Thomas that bolsters your position that the church needs to quit relying on the government to do its work.

DanMy tongue was firmly in my cheek during my last comment - It would of course be some cheek for me to complain about how long you are taking when I took like an AEON to do the last one!

Anyway, wouldnt it be sad if THIS post was the one that broke all previous comment records! Having said that, I am not sure that loads of comments is necessarily a good thing. Personally I like to try and write in such a way as to MINIMISE comments - I guess I do quite a good job!

Dan - To reclaim the comment crown from Phil you will need to leave comments in your own post answering peoples questions.(Out of the 410 posts in "Why the Lordship debate died - about 100 of the comments were made by Phil).

Paul's suggestion above of, "How John Piper's leaky-canonism leads to lawless hyper-calvinism." Is the funniest one I've seen so far. If you wrote that post and could somehow work in something about alcohol, you'd be a hero in some Southern Baptist circles. Heck, they'd probably invite you to speak at First Baptist Church Woodstock in Georgia.

It would. And it would be emblematic of our age, if talking about doing something outperformed actually doing something. But the thing is, Phil's did it in, what, a couple of days? This one'll be (deservedly) down the chain pretty soon.

I could just start a series of posts saying, "Kim?" Then when she comments "What?", I could reply "Nothing" -- and then start over.

I appreciate and understand what you are trying to convey. Please continue…

In addition to Dr. MacArthur’s (some old, some new) articles on LS at Pulpit Magazine and Nathan’s extensive look at the issue and 7 days review of my book, Phil did an 8 part series on Lordship.

This was my way of showing that, even for these men, the Lordship debate must not be altogether dead. That is why I asked if it is dead, why all the effort to define, defend, discuss and debate the issue.

You wrote, “Remember Antonio and his constant off-topic attempts to steer a comments thread toward his no-lordship views? He and others have been hijacking these comments threads, and inappropriately so.”

Yes, I believe I saw some of that, and it was wrong. I believe you will agree that I did not do that sort of thing. I posted on LS in the tread that Phil dedicated to that discussion. I think I had one other post in one of his eight LS articles.

Incidentally, in mid-October I was contacted and invited by Nathan to visit Pulpit Magazine and participate in the LS discussion he was about to begin with an initial series of five articles. I waited nearly two weeks before submitting my first post. That initial discussion lead to the five (then 7) part series he did on my book. Until Nathan sought me out and contacted me I never heard of Pulpit Magazine.

You wrote, “And what happened? Same old same old--selective quoting of Scriptures as well as writers and texts of the past…”

Again I did note that Antonio does cite Hodges extensively and those arguments are dated. By the way, he pasted a long Hodges quote in one of my threads.

Now, you may call this a “shameful plug,” but my book does not come to the LS debate from the “same old” FG platforms. I select, quote and address the Scriptures used by Lordship advocates to defend their position, such as Luke 9:23-24; Rom. 10:9 and Acts 16:31. This is why I chose the subtitle: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

Nathan acknowledged that my book is very close to a lordship position, but I must reiterate that when it comes to the reception of eternal life there is a wide gap.

Ask yourself: If my book was the “same old” rehash of out dated arguments, why the extensive articles from John MacArthur, Nathan and Phil? Why the review and discussion of my book?

The Calvinist embraces a rationalistic fatalism rather than biblical faith in his approach to theology. This is how he arrives at the conclusions found in Calvinism.

Rationalistic fatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage. According to Franklin's Dictionary & Thesaurus, “rationalistic” is literally: “reliance on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious truth,” and “fatalism” is the “belief that fate determines events.” Of course “fate” is a cause beyond human control to determine.

Looking at the statement in this light demonstrates that those referred to rely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings.

The “circle logic” of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken. One must approach the system with reason rather than faith.

This of course leads to the fatalism just mentioned, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of human souls and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome.

The Rules

PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.

Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.

See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.

If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.

Followers

Stats Attack!

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always.